- From: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:01:56 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
lör 2012-01-28 klockan 09:13 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke: > > I would apply a lossy conversion (reverse-mapping between UTF-8 and 8859-1). > > So whatever fits 8859-1 would correctly be mapped, and the rest would be lost > > or quoted. I don't think it's that big an issue if this is a well-known > > There is no quoting we can use, unless we define a new one... Or we just accept that HTTP/1.1 implementations do not follow HTTP/1.1 encoding specifications anyway for non-ascii data and simply say that when I18N field values need to be gatewayed to HTTP/1.1 then send them as UTF-8 even if HTTP/1.1 specifications says otherwise, intentionally overriding HTTP/1.1 specifications. Sure it will break some to fix some (and mainly authentication), but it's not really such a big deal. In the end it's about the same amount of breakage as today, only different and more consistent. But it's a bad idea to open for I18N in field names. Regards Henrik
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 04:03:49 UTC